Appeals court reversed a lower court ruling
that contributors to a Superfund site had to cross a "threshold" level of
pollution contribution to be liable for recovery costs. Liability is imposed
on all contributors; the court will allocate costs according to contribution
levels and other equitable factors.

Topic

Environmental Law

Key Words

CERCLA; Recovery Cost; Contribution; PRP; Liability

C A S E
S U M M A R Y

Facts

A long portion of the Kalamazoo River is polluted with PCBs
and is listed as a Superfund site under CERCLA. Paper mills located along
the river were listed as potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The mills
were joined by other companies to form the Kalamazoo River Study Group (KSRG),
which investigated the environmental damage prior to recovery efforts. No
parties have been adjudged legally liable for the contamination. KSRG sought
to recover investigation expenses from the various companies that the KSRG
study found to have added PCB to the river. Both Menahsa and Eaton, which
have plants on the river identified as possible PCB sources, refused to
contribute to cover KSRG expenses. KSRG sued. The district court held that
firms found to have crossed the "threshold of significance standard" for
contributing pollutants would have to contribute to cover KSRG expenses.
It found that Menahsa and Eaton did not meet that standard and so did not
have to contribute. KSRG appealed.

Decision

Reversed. One discharge into a Superfund site is sufficient
to support liability under CERCLA. There is no need for causation to be
shown; that is, that a particular polluter caused particular problems. Even
if Menasha and Eaton are small PCB contributors, they are liable and no
threshold standard is used to determine that. "After liability has been
determined, the district court may properly consider the causal link between
each defendant's waste and the resulting environmental harm, along with
other relevant equitable factors, in allocating response costs among the
liable parties."